Musings & Meanderings

Not a topic I typically dwell on, but lately it keeps coming up. Normally I love it when a theme develops. This one, though, is hardly melodic.

For example, yesterday I tried on and off to find a proper attribution for the quote about classes and masses. I found none in books and disturbing ones online, in that someone would use the saying in a post or article and then be quoted with attribution. This was described to me as an old saying in the 1970s when I first heard it.

Then I came across these 2 articles, one after the other:

On July 11th 2005, Roy Williams wrote this column on Entrepreneur dot com.

On May 22nd 2007 Jane May posted this on Career Ramblings dot com.

This is only one of several such examples I have come across in the past few days, all by happenstance.

Finally, I started reviewing the recent conversation in various blogs and publications. Seems that conversation on this swells up about twice a year. The issue has become somewhat contentious as concerns blogging, with some marketing types vigorously defending word of mouth and viral marketing as free speech, but that isn’t really what plagiarism is. It is theft, pure and simple, and the more of us say so in no uncertain terms, the better the possibility that many new bloggers with little or no experience of the issue will understand better. Internet research also has, apparently led to an increase in plagiarism by students. The clearer we are on the ethics of this, as well, the better we will be able to educate our children on the matter.

You can read up on the legal aspects if you need to (careful about believing whatever you read on the web, though, if you really want to understand a legal position you must consult an experienced and reputable lawyer). Common practice, if you are quoting another’s words, is to make it clear you are doing so, and make the attribution to the original author. Legality aside, this is civil and respectful conduct of a sort that each of us appreciate from others. Most blogs and websites have a Creative Commons license or other notice of permissions given and withheld by the author. Read it before you copy anything.

A good place to start is this article titled The 20 Best Free Anti Plagiarism Tools by Jonathan Bailey on Blog Herald. Jonathan also writes a blog called Plagiarism Today, including a good post titled 5 Practical Reasons For Fighting Plagiarism. Search ‘plagiarism on the internet’ on any search engine, and you’ll find more people and organizations if you have the need or interest.

I’ve also learned that there is a category of software developed specifically for finding plagiarism. My first thought was, oh, someone should get these guys together with the relational search guys, but after further reading, I get the impression that it is perhaps still quite limited and clunky. Nevertheless, it is heartening to know that there is activity against plagiarism and plenty of conversation about it. Even though not all bloggers are professional writers, the better we understand the subject, and keep up with new definitions as they develop in relation to the internet, the better a contribution we can all make to this place of ours.

(recent
related
posts)

Thinking out loud here. In the open space between aggregation and formal registration.

Is there already such a thing? Specifically for internet and web publishing, where formal copyright is not appropriate? If not, it can’t go on my future projects list (as that is already too long), but I’d add part time input and/or assistance to get one going.

What I am picturing is a sort of reverse RSS subscription to a public record, where the feed address is listed and the content cached. No anonymous subscriptions. Call it something like ‘For the Record’.

Attribution and copyright issues are important not only to traditional and professional publishers, but also to many freelance and aspiring writers and other content creators. Many a starving writer used to rely on the old standby process of sending his/her work to themselves via registered mail.

There are also internet and web publishers who aren’t professionals, but who still care about whether their words are misused or abused or quoted out of context.

Those who publish on the web for purely personal and social reasons aren’t the subscriber base, but many or most of them are also the readers.

Then there is linkage. I’ve occasionally found links to my own content that never did show up on Technorati, or on search engines. The unseen links area is not something that would be directly addressed by an attribution database, but would be much easier to address based on it.

Speaking of secondary applications, here’s the hidden ’social web’ nugget. The subscriber base would divide naturally into professional publishers, academia including scholars, institutions and students, freelance publishers, and amateur. A bit of further categorization could organize the data into forms that are relationally compilable, whether by topic, date, subscriber category, or whatever else you decided to build into an advanced search. Mind you a simple button widget for all current web posts and conversations on the same topic sounds awfully attractive by itself.

What do you think?

Would this be an ISOC, EFF, Creative Commons type project?

An opensource prototype by someone creative?

A traditional publishing industry initiative?

A combination private enterprise and non-profit paid subscription model? (say $10 per year for amateur publishers and a variety of schedules for businesses, groups, institutions, etc.)

Certainly the potential congruence (depending on how the db is set up) with relational search development is interesting, but the inherent conflict between private competition in search and the objective nature of the ‘record’ is problematic, unless a search developer was only one funder/founder of the primary information depository.

Quite a mix of public and private interests.

Comments? Ideas?

After my post on Wednesday stating that I though CNet should apologize to Wired, several people asked me,

“Why do you care?”.

My initial response to this was simply, “Why don’t you?”, but, after some reflection, I decided that the question deserves a more detailed response. The following is hardly a complete response. The reasons for caring about attribution could easily lead to development of long tracts on morality, philosophy, social responsibility, and more, so here, first, are a few of my personal beliefs on why I care in general.

I care about the world I live in, and believe that every one of my actions combine with everyone else’s to make it either a better or worse place to live.

I know that it is possible to be successful in life and in business while behaving in a moral and ethical manner.

Speaking up for a popular cause is always easy, speaking up for what you believe in sometimes isn’t.

Personal popularity isn’t success, and it also isn’t a measure of trust or loyalty.

Being loyal to yourself and the things you believe in is worth it, even when it is difficult or costly.

Now as to why I care about attribution specifically:

Attribution is something that concerns anyone who has ever published, or thought to publish, anything. Ever more of us derive our livelihood from ‘right-brain’ activities. For reporters and journalists specifically, attribution or the lack thereof is an asset that translates into both reputation and earning power. Despite the major shifts taking place on the publishing landscape, in terms of copyright, ease and accessibility, etc., the basic societal structures of how we organize ourselves around ideas and information haven’t changed substantially.

The FBI spyware story belongs to all of us, and it’s a good thing that there are plenty of postings and conversations about it. It relates to many issues which we should understand better and be more aware of in general, including privacy, security, and law enforcement on the internet.

My post on Wednesday was a statement of my opinion on something I observed that bothered me. It is my way to act, whenever possible, when I see something that appears unjust. In most cases, that action involves private and personal communication. In others, where many lives are affected, there are organizations that I can add my support to, in the form of making a donation of time, influence, or money. (In this case, the actors were speaking in public.)

In the case of the Wired/CNet story, I subscribe to both of their feeds, and do not know either of the specific reporters personally. I initially emailed both of them. Declan McCullagh did not respond. Kevin Poulsen did. After a few more conversations about it, I decided to post my personal opinion here. Even though it wasn’t likely to change anything all those hours later, it is still a statement for the record.

If the CNet story lacked an appropriate attribution to Wired (as I believe), that could have, and still can, be changed at any time. This is a tremendous power to change that we have here. Like any power, it can be used well and it can also be abused.

We’ve seen, since the rise of powerful blogger journalists and the awkwardly growing area called citizen journalism, more than a few stories broken where ’scoops’ were publicly credited to individuals, adding to their reputation and clout. The majority of these individuals is deserving of their reputations, worked hard to build them, and did not do so primarily at the expense of others.

Plagiarism is anathema to any ethical publisher, of news or anything else. This is not, at heart, an issue of monetary value or rights, but rather an issue of ethical behavior and mutual respect, essential components to peaceful human co-existence. The growth of open platforms such as blogging, combined with the growing population online and the lightning speed of the medium, are enabling the dissemination of all published writing at unprecedented speed. Those of us who value the freedom of this medium, in my opinion, should also contribute whatever we can to education and to raising the standards of behavior whenever possible.

The basic definition of plagiarism, though, does not take into account the new concept of people chatting about, commenting on, and passing on ‘news’ in a published form. Telling your friends about something you heard/read isn’t a professional activity, and there is a lot of gray area here that would benefit from more discussion and consideration.

Most people publishing online include a copyright statement, and the most common (based on my own observations only) is one which states that all are free to re-publish, usually in original form, with attribution to the author. In the less formal publishing taking place in social mediums, it is becoming common practice to pass the word around without using or referencing the original form, but still thanking or giving a ‘hat tip’ to the writer’s source. Even non-professional publishers adhere to these basic behavioral codes of civility and respect.

—–
These are some of the reasons I care. What are some of yours?

Last night, Kevin Poulsen filed a story for Wired titled FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats, followed this morning by FBI’s Magic Lantern revealed.

Several hours after the first Wired story appeared, Declan McCullagh broke the same story on the CNet News Blog …without any mention of the earlier article in Wired.

This FBI spyware story, an important one to anyone concerned about privacy, has been on the tech news radar since since MSNBC’s Bob Sullivan first wrote about the rumored development of the Magic Lantern spyware in November of 2001, and has been followed by Wired since then.

Reporters and journalists work hard to break news, get the facts straight, and deliver them first.

So CNet’s blog posting needs, at the very least, an update acknowledging the original source of today’s story.

We need more, not less, ethical journalism on the internet. We enjoy unprecedented speed of communication here, as well as unprecedented freedom of speech. I believe that it is up to us who use and appreciate this medium to do everything we can to contribute to civil and ethical standards of behavior online in order to protect that freedom.

—–
A related post 2 days later.